OBJECTIVES: To examine the correlation of biopsy Gleason scores with radical prostatectomy specimens from a laboratory that uses protocols designed to minimize observer variability. This protocol mandates consensus case review of all nonbenign cases. METHODS: Between August 24, 1993 and June 26, 1997, 106 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland had their prostate cancer diagnosed and graded at one laboratory (DIANON Systems). We analyzed the Gleason scores from the biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. RESULTS: Exact correlation existed between biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores for 72 (68%) cases; 103 (97%) correlated within 1 grade, all cases correlated within 2 grades; 26 (25%) biopsies were undergraded and 8 (8%) were overgraded. Positive predictive values for biopsy Gleason scores 5, 6, and 7 were 66%, 67%, and 71%, respectively. Grouped Gleason scores (well differentiated [2 to 4], moderately differentiated [5, 6], moderately to poorly differentiated [7], and poorly differentiated [8 to 10]) correlated exactly for 74 (70%) cases and within 1 group for all cases. Patient age, digital rectal examination results, total number of positive cores, and maximum percentage of tumor on biopsy did not affect correlation, but prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels did affect correlation (exact correlation 96% when the PSA level was less than 5 ng/mL; 50% when the PSA level was 11 ng/mL or greater, P <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of experience and the protocol described minimizes intra- and interobserver variability, thereby improving the predictive value of biopsy Gleason grading. Biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores correlate more poorly when the PSA level is high (11 ng/mL or greater) than when the PSA level is low (less than 5 ng/mL).
OBJECTIVES: To examine the correlation of biopsy Gleason scores with radical prostatectomy specimens from a laboratory that uses protocols designed to minimize observer variability. This protocol mandates consensus case review of all nonbenign cases. METHODS: Between August 24, 1993 and June 26, 1997, 106 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland had their prostate cancer diagnosed and graded at one laboratory (DIANON Systems). We analyzed the Gleason scores from the biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. RESULTS: Exact correlation existed between biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores for 72 (68%) cases; 103 (97%) correlated within 1 grade, all cases correlated within 2 grades; 26 (25%) biopsies were undergraded and 8 (8%) were overgraded. Positive predictive values for biopsy Gleason scores 5, 6, and 7 were 66%, 67%, and 71%, respectively. Grouped Gleason scores (well differentiated [2 to 4], moderately differentiated [5, 6], moderately to poorly differentiated [7], and poorly differentiated [8 to 10]) correlated exactly for 74 (70%) cases and within 1 group for all cases. Patient age, digital rectal examination results, total number of positive cores, and maximum percentage of tumor on biopsy did not affect correlation, but prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels did affect correlation (exact correlation 96% when the PSA level was less than 5 ng/mL; 50% when the PSA level was 11 ng/mL or greater, P <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of experience and the protocol described minimizes intra- and interobserver variability, thereby improving the predictive value of biopsy Gleason grading. Biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores correlate more poorly when the PSA level is high (11 ng/mL or greater) than when the PSA level is low (less than 5 ng/mL).
Authors: Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin; Changhong Yu; Kristen L Zakian; Kazuma Udo; Peter T Scardino; James Eastham; Michael W Kattan Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Lars Egevad; Ferran Algaba; Daniel M Berney; Liliane Boccon-Gibod; Eva Compérat; Andrew J Evans; Rainer Grobholz; Glen Kristiansen; Cord Langner; Gina Lockwood; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Rodolfo Montironi; Pedro Oliveira; Matthias Schwenkglenks; Ben Vainer; Murali Varma; Vincent Verger; Philippe Camparo Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2011-06-23 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Marko Brock; Christian von Bodman; Jüri Palisaar; Wolfgang Becker; Philipp Martin-Seidel; Joachim Noldus Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2015-09-11 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: David E Kang; Nicholas J Fitzsimons; Joseph C Presti; Christopher J Kane; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Christopher L Amling; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Urology Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Richard Walker; Uri Lindner; Alyssa Louis; Robin Kalnin; Marguerite Ennis; Michael Nesbitt; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Antonio Finelli; Neil E Fleshner; Alexandre R Zlotta; Michael A S Jewett; Robert Hamilton; Girish Kulkarni; John Trachtenberg Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.862